imergea_get_capabilitiesReturns the 8 public read-only IMERGEA MCP tools, supported languages, and the explicit FREE indicative valuation versus PAID advisory journey with secure human handoff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| current_tools | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'returns' and 'read-only'. It adds valuable context about the specific content (8 tools, languages, advisory journey) and the secure human handoff, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb 'Returns' and compresses all essential information (tools, languages, journey, handoff) without any fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema present. The description names the key components (8 tools, languages, FREE/PAID journey, handoff) which sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know. The output schema handles the specific return structure, so no further detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters and adds no parameter-specific information, but no further clarification is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it returns the 8 public read-only IMERGEA MCP tools, supported languages, and the FREE vs PAID advisory journey. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools which perform specific actions like valuation or advisory booking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While it's implicitly a capability-discovery tool to be used first, the description does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would likely infer its usage as an entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The analytical and deal-flow tools are distinct, but the service-info cluster overlaps heavily: get_capabilities, list_advisory_services, recommend_advisory_service, and get_advisory_booking_link all describe paid packages, pricing, or handoff routing. In particular, get_advisory_booking_link and list_advisory_services both claim to handle price questions, making the boundaries genuinely unclear for an agent.
Most tools follow an imergea_<verb>_<object> pattern such as assess_transaction_readiness, get_capabilities, and refer_deal, but imergea_business_valuation and imergea_partner_application are noun-phrase names without an imperative verb. The prefix and snake_case keep everything readable, yet the convention is mixed.
Eight tools is a reasonable size for an M&A advisory surface covering valuation, readiness, services, partner intake, and deal referral. However, four of the eight tools are dedicated to the same discovery/booking funnel—capabilities, list services, recommend, and booking link—so the cluster feels slightly over-decomposed.
The core read-only journeys are covered: free indicative valuation, readiness assessment, paid service discovery and booking handoff, partner application, and deal referral. There are minor gaps such as no general contact/FAQ tool or status-tracking mechanism, but agents can work around these because the server intentionally avoids personal-data submission and hands off to human forms.